Normally I pride myself on being non-alarmist, but this is a moment to issue some very loud warnings. This is a moment that we will look back on as one that could have changed the course of things: If only they had moved the Olympics.

about the author

Meghan May, Ph.D., is an associate professor of biomedical sciences at the University of New England College of Medicine in Biddeford.

Why is this so critical? The Zika virus. I am formally adding my voice to those saying that sending hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world to the active epidemic zone is a terrible, terrible idea.

Zika virus infection causes fever, joint pain, headache, fatigue and occasionally a rash in infected patients; it is rarely fatal. The infectious disease community, however, is deeply concerned about Zika for another reason: It is now indisputable that microcephaly – a neurological birth defect that produces unusually small heads and underdeveloped brains in newborns – is associated with Zika infection of their mothers during pregnancy.

The current recommendations indicate that pregnant women should not attend the Olympics in Brazil. This makes perfect sense; however, it is a woefully inadequate measure.

I am not saying that those who travel to Rio de Janeiro are themselves at risk of severe illness or death. I am saying they are at risk of infection, and an infected person, whether or not they are overtly sick, becomes an excellent delivery vehicle for Zika.

Given the number of international visitors predicted to arrive in Brazil, these vehicles will then drive all over the world, delivering Zika virus to wherever they go next. Will they recover without infecting anyone else? Hopefully, but not necessarily.

How likely is this scenario? After all, the Games will be held in Rio’s winter, making bites by Zika’s mosquito vector less likely. “Less likely” is a very relative term. The average winter temperature in Rio de Janeiro is about 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 degrees Celsius), which is hardly cold enough to eliminate the possibility of mosquito bites.

There is plenty of evidence from other viruses spread by the same mosquito that infection rates will likely slow down, but certainly not disappear. It stands to reason, then, that some of these international visitors will become infected with Zika.

If they return home, how likely are they to spread it to others? To answer this, we have to look at how the Zika virus is spread. Zika is primarily spread by one of several mosquito species (Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Aedes africanus, Aedes luteocephalus and Aedes opok), but it can also be spread by sexual contact and blood transfusion.

It is generally agreed that Zika emerging as an exclusively sexually transmitted pathogen is unlikely; however, any place where any of the aforementioned mosquitoes live represents a possible site for a future outbreak. Looking at a distribution map of Aedes aegypti alone indicates that local transmission is possible in many parts of the world where it does not currently occur: most notably India, northern Australia, the southeastern United States and coastal China. This could result in small numbers of cases in the U.S. and Australia.

To truly have an extensive epidemic, a high population density in urban areas would be required. The potential for satellite epidemics in India and China is, therefore, extremely high. When one looks at the distribution of Aedes albopictus, Japan also represents a high epidemic risk.

It is further worth noting that we are not yet exhaustively sure of the list of mosquitoes capable of spreading Zika. More places could be at risk than we currently realize.

But how likely is any of this? On a global scale, travelers to the Olympic Games represent a small number of people. What are the odds that they will bring Zika back to their home countries, where it can infect the most vulnerable? Should we be this worried about a coming generation of children with severe birth defects that will leave them mentally challenged, lower their life expectancy and rob them of their eyesight, their hearing or both?

As a scientist, a mother and a human being, I would argue that the odds are irrelevant. Every case in the Western Hemisphere right now is somehow linked back to a single Zika-infected traveler who was bitten while visiting Latin America. All it takes is one patient and one mosquito under the right set of circumstances. It is not worth the risk.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

xcalibur1066

This is why the Olympics should not be “given” to third world countries. There have been numerous other issue with these Olympics as well.

It would be impossible to move the summer Olympics but they can be cancelled. Both choices are devastating to the athletes.

Brian Peterson

Not to mention that the aquatics competitors will be swimming in sewage. Great article; makes perfect sense, should be followed, and will be roundly excoriated by the apologists for Rio.

mainelifer

It’s science versus corporate, commercial interests at this advanced date. Which do you think will win?

Jeremy

But hey the euro-snobs of the IOC got to both look progressive and collect their bribes!

Thomas Harmon

Agreed and an alternative site would have to be probably a northern hemisphere latitude of at least 40 degrees as cities in the southern hemisphere that have the proper facilities (i.e., Australia) are still too warm. I vote for Detroit cause they would get a great deal! (along with Univ. of Michigan only 30 miles away)